Sox Actively Shopping Viciedo

[witesoxfan]

Most elite baseball minds would tell you that your best hitter should hit #2. And let them hit, none of this "get em' over, get em' in" BS. Both have merits, but the 2 hole is not utilized in the "traditional" way by many teams these days.

 

I do not agree with this and I do not believe most elite baseball minds would agree with this either. I think the 2nd spot is a very important spot in the lineup, but it does not necessarily have to be your best hitter.

[ChiSox59]

I do not agree with this and I do not believe most elite baseball minds would agree with this either. I think the 2nd spot is a very important spot in the lineup, but it does not necessarily have to be your best hitter.

 

That is fine. Not everyone looks at the game the same way.

 

Maybe "most" was the wrong word. I will use "many" instead, and firmly stand behind that statement.

[witesoxfan]

That is fine. Not everyone looks at the game the same way.

 

Maybe "most" was the wrong word. I will use "many" instead, and firmly stand behind that statement.

 

I don't think there's necessarily a clear cut answer. If your best hitter happens to be a high OBP, limited slugging guy, leadoff or the two hole would be best. But if your best hitter has a ton of power, I'd say the cleanup spot is a much better spot for him. In the end, so long as they're near the top, you're OK. Studies have shown that the difference between the best lineup optimization and the worst lineup optimization without being completely irrational (like benching Jose Abreu for Leury Garcia) is only going to make a difference of like 5 games, and the most optimal lineup is not going to be that far off from the typical managerial lineup.

[Eminor3rd]

Wait, its not?

 

It was invented in the early 80's. The idea of it is sound, but it's inaccurate because it assumes that on-base and total bases are equally valuable, which they aren't, and the relative value of each changes as the run environment changes.

 

It was obsolete when they invented linear weights-based statistic like wOBA, which attempt to do the same thing as OPS except they are actually accurate because they utilize separate run values for each type of offensive event and those values are upated to the run environment every year. But OPS was still useful as shorthand because people weren't calibrated to what made a good or bad wOBA, but then they invented wRC+, which is wOBA but park-adjusted, league-adjusted, and constantly scaled to league average so it's even easier to understand than OPS on shorthand.

 

Then they invented OPS+, which is just as easy to reference as wRC+, but is less accurate and therefore useless.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[witesoxfan]

It was invented in the early 80's. The idea of it is sound, but it's inaccurate because it assumes that on-base and total bases are equally valuable, which they aren't, and the relative value of each changes as the run environment changes.

 

It was obsolete when they invented linear weights-based statistic like wOBA, which attempt to do the same thing as OPS except they are actually accurate because they utilize separate run values for each type of offensive event and those values are upated to the run environment every year. But OPS was still useful as shorthand because people weren't calibrated to what made a good or bad wOBA, but then they invented wRC+, which is wOBA but park-adjusted, league-adjusted, and constantly scaled to league average so it's even easier to understand than OPS on shorthand.

 

Then they invented OPS+, which is just as easy to reference as wRC+, but is less accurate and therefore useless.

 

I thought he was talking about the tuxedo shirt not being proper formal wear at a dinner party. That's all I wear to formal dinner parties.

[LDF]

Most elite baseball minds would tell you that your best hitter should hit #2. And let them hit, none of this "get em' over, get em' in" BS. Both have merits, but the 2 hole is not utilized in the "traditional" way by many teams these days.

 

i am old fart and do not know the advance stats and all. i am old school. #1 get on base,

#2, move him over, let #1 cause havoc on the base path, lead off, steal a base. #3,4,5

let them hit away.

 

btw imo the best hitter is always been #3.

[Eminor3rd]

Most elite baseball minds would tell you that your best hitter should hit #2. And let them hit, none of this "get em' over, get em' in" BS. Both have merits, but the 2 hole is not utilized in the "traditional" way by many teams these days.

 

I think the disconnect here is that #2 should be your best hitter if you assume a simulated environment where everyone is constantly just trying to hit as well as they can in all situations. I also think that the intense run environment that existed when this research first came out made it so that a "steroid era slugfest" approach made more sense, since every player in the league got on base at .350 or more.

 

I continue to believe that the 2 hitter needs to be a very good hitter and that teams that put a slappy/situational guy there are doing themselves a disservice, but it isn't safe to say that Barry Bonds belongs there anymore, because it isn't safe to assume we'll have all the base runners we used to have.

[Boopa1219]

Most elite baseball minds would tell you that your best hitter should hit #2. And let them hit, none of this "get em' over, get em' in" BS. Both have merits, but the 2 hole is not utilized in the "traditional" way by many teams these days.

 

I agree with the people, you're best all around hitter should bat 2nd not 3rd.

[ChiSox59]

I don't think there's necessarily a clear cut answer. If your best hitter happens to be a high OBP, limited slugging guy, leadoff or the two hole would be best. But if your best hitter has a ton of power, I'd say the cleanup spot is a much better spot for him. In the end, so long as they're near the top, you're OK. Studies have shown that the difference between the best lineup optimization and the worst lineup optimization without being completely irrational (like benching Jose Abreu for Leury Garcia) is only going to make a difference of like 5 games, and the most optimal lineup is not going to be that far off from the typical managerial lineup.

 

Studies also show that your #2 hitter actually comes to bat in "key/pressure/critical/important" moments more often than any other spot in the lineup. Furthermore, the #2 hitter is going to see quite a bit more at bats throughout the year than the #4 hitter - assuming the same guy bats #2 and #4 all year. Now, your "best hitter" isn't necessarily your most powerful or even productive hitter, they're simply someone who drives the ball, doesn't strike out a whole lot and gets on base. Two of the better "pure hitters" in baseball - Votto and Mauer - primarily bat in the two hole. I could go on for awhile, but the point is, plenty of elite baseball minds think your best all around hitter should bat #2.

[Eminor3rd]

I thought he was talking about the tuxedo shirt not being proper formal wear at a dinner party. That's all I wear to formal dinner parties.

 

Oh, whoops.

 

[shysocks]

As long as Gordon Beckham isn't hitting 2nd, it typically won't make much of a difference, as wite said. A fraction of a run per game.

[LDF]

another question, why have an OBP player if he is batting #2?

 

the #2 hitters has a whole different set of mentality to think of.

 

 

A lot of really dumb things have been said in this thread.

 

it is even dumber if you are not stating your problem, only just to

voice an opinion.

 

Most elite baseball minds would tell you that your best hitter should hit #2. And let them hit, none of this "get em' over, get em' in" BS. Both have merits, but the 2 hole is not utilized in the "traditional" way by many teams these days.

 

 

Studies also show that your #2 hitter actually comes to bat in "key/pressure/critical/important" moments more often than any other spot in the lineup. Furthermore, the #2 hitter is going to see quite a bit more at bats throughout the year than the #4 hitter - assuming the same guy bats #2 and #4 all year. Now, your "best hitter" isn't necessarily your most powerful or even productive hitter, they're simply someone who drives the ball, doesn't strike out a whole lot and gets on base. Two of the better "pure hitters" in baseball - Votto and Mauer - primarily bat in the two hole. I could go on for awhile, but the point is, plenty of elite baseball minds think your best all around hitter should bat #2.

 

you are saying and giving opinions on something that was not mention. #2 hitter does have

alot of responsibility in his at bat.

 

[ChiSox59]

you are saying and giving opinions on something that was not mention. #2 hitter does have

alot of responsibility in his at bat.

 

I don't care to get into an advanced stat discussion. I especially don't care to get into why it is dumb to state that OBP is an advanced stat.

 

The discussion on the 2 hole was completely separate.

[LDF]

I don't care to get into an advanced stat discussion. I especially don't care to get into why it is dumb to state that OBP is an advanced stat.

 

The discussion on the 2 hole was completely separate.

 

you made the statement of dumb, explain yourself. it shouldn't be hard.

 

next, i know nothing of advance stats or anything like that. i am completely

lost when posters start using these stats to make a point. i never said anything

to support what ops or anything to that. i wouldn't know what i am talking about.

 

ref #2 why mention anything of dumb

 

like i do anyway.

 

[Chisoxfn]

I still don't get why we didn't non-tender Dayan.

[Dick Allen]

I still don't get why we didn't non-tender Dayan.

They obviously feel like they can get something for him.

[southsider2k5]

I still don't get why we didn't non-tender Dayan.

 

If they are able to trade him for something else, that pretty clearly shows why they didn't non-tender him.

[Kyyle23]

Oh, whoops.

 

 

back on the trading block you go

[witesoxfan]

I still don't get why we didn't non-tender Dayan.

 

I think it's because they like him enough that he can be a fallback option in the event that they don't get an outfielder, but if they do, his salary is conceivably low enough that they can trade him or DFA him.

 

I could see a team like the Padres or Twins or Phillies taking a shot on him. They don't believe they're close to competing and can maybe find room for a guy like that on their team, so what's the worst thing that's going to happen? They get mediocre production and cut him the following year?

[royoung]

They obviously feel like they can get something for him.

 

Agreed. I don't think they planned on him being on the White Sox on Opening Day when they tendered him. He will go sometime this winter.

[Chisoxfn]

If they are able to trade him for something else, that pretty clearly shows why they didn't non-tender him.

Yeah...we'll see what they get. If they get something of extremely minimal value, then i'd say it wasn't worth the risk of being stuck paying him 4+M.

[Chisoxfn]

They obviously feel like they can get something for him.

I hope they surprise me. Clearly that would appear to be the case but I personally am not expecting much of a return for him, if at all. I think this could be one of those scenarios where we misjudged the market, although I hope I am wrong and they (KW / Hahn) clearly know the market better than I do.

[Dick Allen]

Yeah...we'll see what they get. If they get something of extremely minimal value, then i'd say it wasn't worth the risk of being stuck paying him 4+M.

If the Sox don't want him on the roster, they could waive him during Spring Training and be on the hook for 20% of his salary. So they really aren't even risking $1 million.

 

And there is always a chance they wouldn't mind keeping him. Steverson was quoted a month or so ago raving about how hard he works, and how much he wants to be good. He is still pretty young.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Chisoxfn]

If the Sox don't want him on the roster, they could waive him during Spring Training and be on the hook for 20% of his salary. So they really aren't even risking $1 million.

I didn't realize his money wasn't guaranteed prior to the start of the season. Much more acceptable risk when you phrase it that way.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah...we'll see what they get. If they get something of extremely minimal value, then i'd say it wasn't worth the risk of being stuck paying him 4+M.

 

$4 million isn't even really that much today. It won't even get you a decent middle reliever anymore.